Opinion
Civil Action 5:18-CV-0142-C
01-17-2023
CHARLES EPLEY, Plaintiff, v. MARCO GONZALEZ, Sergeant at Montford, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
SAM R. CUMMINGS, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court are the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed December 15,2022, recommending that the Court: (1) strike Epley's ADA and RA claims against all Defendants other than TDCJ under Rule 12(e); (2) dismiss without prejudice Epley's ADA and RA claims against all Defendants other than TDCJ under Rules 12(e) and 41(b); and (3) dismiss without prejudice Epley's state law claims for failure to comply with Court orders under Rule 41(b). Plaintiff failed to timely file objections to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations.
The Court conducts a de novo review of those portions of the Magistrate Judge's report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which a timely objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Portions of the report or proposed findings or recommendations that are not the subject of a timely objection will be accepted by the Court unless they are clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219,1221 (5th Cir. 1989).
The Court has conducted an independent review of the Magistrate Judge's findings and conclusions and finds no error. It is therefore ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation are hereby ADOPTED as the findings and conclusions of the Court. For the reasons stated therein, the Court: (1) STRIKES Epley's ADA and RA claims against all Defendants other than TDCJ under Rule 12(e); (2) DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Epley's ADA and RA claims against all Defendants other than TDCJ under Rules 12(e) and 41(b); and (3) DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Epley's state law claims for failure to comply with Court orders under Rule 41(b).
SO ORDERED.